Reconsider How Ties Receive Points

[xxbassplayerxx]

Right now, a tie on the bot ends up with the user who submitted first taking the higher position. Because this hobby is one that is largely based on competing with old hardware and time is not a very relative metric, I suggest the following changes.

Take this example (me!!) for consideration:




Mothod 1:
For a tie, the points normally given to the users would be added together and divided by the number of users (an average). In the rankings, all users would show as having the same rank.

For example:

(39.8+33.5+29.7)/3 = 34.3 points each

1. 4sec 437ms 49.9pts
2. 4sec 453ms 34.3pts
2. 4sec 453ms 34.3pts
2. 4sec 453ms 34.3pts
5. 4sec 464ms 27.2pts


Method 2:
The other way to divvy points would be to give them all whatever 2nd place normally receives, in this case 39.8 points. The 5th place user would still receive the points that 5th place normally awards.

For example:

1. 4sec 437ms 49.9pts
2. 4sec 453ms 39.8pts
2. 4sec 453ms 39.8pts
2. 4sec 453ms 39.8pts
5. 4sec 464ms 27.2pts


Note that all users receive 2nd place as well as the same amount of points (as is fair with a tie). Each would also receive a silver cup, in this instance.

I prefer Method 2. This way, no one loses points (as would happen with some people in Method 1) and other people tying would not cause the points value to drop.

What are your thoughts and opinions?

[GENiEBEN]

Im for Method 2 or a Method 3 where ties are sorted by cpu frequency efficiency (lower mhz > better place).

[Massman]

We can't do efficiency, people will clock down for screenshot purposes and lie about the used frequency. We can't enforce, so we shouldn't make a rule that encourages lying.

I like both ideas, but I'm also not really against the current "whoever submits first is ranked higher"-principle (although I guess that's more relevant to competitions rather than a continuous ranking). Whichever is the least amount of effort to code, I'd opt for. Dennis, what do you think?

[Massman]

By the way, I suppose this thread could also be in the public forums? I think it would be interesting to hear more than just staff opinions about this.

[GENiEBEN]

Let's see Dennis' response.

[knopflerbruce]

I don't like method 3 either, efficiency is good, but points are based on scores, not tweaking level. Maybe the same user didn't have the skills to push the last few mhz out of the chip, too - by that reasoning we could reward the max points to the score with the HIGHEST frequency.

Method 2 is the usual method in sports, i'd go with that if possible.

[der8auer]

If there was a poll I'd vote for method 2

Current system is unbalanced at this point as all deserve the same amount of points for equal results.

[Christian Ney]

method 2 ftw

[Gamer]

I would keep it like it is, happend to me a few times.
New drivers, tweaks,....

If it would change, method 2.

[knopflerbruce]

Though, IF there are drawbacks, like increased server load by a fair margin, or it takes too much coding time, the current situation is not a disaster, by all means.